D'Amico has come out on top of its long-running case against Primera Maritime over its decision to not pay out on a forward freight agreement done between the two parties.
A US appellate court decided in favour of d'Amico Dry in its appeal of an August 2016 US District Court ruling refusing to enforce a $1.76m claim against the Paul Coronis-led Primera that had been awarded in a UK court.
D'Amico won the UK judgement against Primera back in 2009. At issue was Primera's refusal to settle up its side on a panamax FFA the two entered into that year.
When d'Amico asked the US District Court to enforce the judgement, Primera successfully argued that the US court had no jurisdiction as the FFA was not a maritime contract, hence this was not admiralty law case.
In essence, Primera said d'Amico entered the FFA for purely speculative reasons and was not using the FFA to hedge a specific charter or voyage.
But the appeals court determined "the district court conceived of its maritime contract jurisdiction too narrowly" in deciding in Primera's favour.
The appeals court said the lower court did not correctly consider testimony from a d'Amico chartering manager who said the FFAs were entered into for the purposes of hedging against movements in spot freight rates.
"The d’Amico‐Primera FFA was plainly made as part of d’Amico’s shipping business, and its principal objective is promoting maritime commerce," the appeals court said in its decision. "Because the d’Amico‐Primera FFA was a maritime contract, the district court erred by dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
